Cost per Car of Ads...

On 04/05/2010 12:38 PM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message
> t...
>
>> 1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for
>> use here in the u.s.
>
> I don't have a client, so this statment is ridiculous.

you don't shill for g.m. ed? don't they pay you for all that hard work
you do in office hours?


>
> How many US companies aren't importing at least some items from China?

how many are doing it at the taxpayer expense ed?


> Do you attack any company doing buisness in China?

actually, i buy american wherever i reasonably can. and i let vendors
know why.


> I'll bet
> significant portions of the very computer you are using to post to
> usenet were made in China. Maybe you should stop supporting the
> Chinese by smashing your computer now...

ed, on this you have a point. but i'll ask you - where is the strategic
sense in allowing all our "domestic" manufacturers to use cheap
exploited labor in china? not only does it prop up a despotic regime
that threatens our allies, it's also not exactly smart to have every
p.c. the department of trade and defense departments using hardware that
comes rootkitted from factory. motorola proved that. boeing are doing
their best to follow.


>
>> 2. that's robbing u.s. suppliers of business, and u.s. taxpayers of
>> jobs.
>
> Robbing is bit strong.

no it's not. if i'm paying someone to take my job away, "rob" is not
only apt, it's probably somewhat of an understatement.


> Are you for or against free trade? Should the
> US Government erect trade barrier to prevent the importation of
> foreign auto components?

i'm absolutely against having foreign auto components imported from a
despotic regime at taxpayer expense and at the cost of american jobs.
abso-freakin'lutely.

>
> On the one hand you attack GM for bad management and taking US
> Government loans. On the other hand you don't want them to source
> components form the low cost suppleirs. Do you think GM buys parts in
> China becasue they like the Chinese?

yes i do. and because they, like you ed, have zero moral integrity. if
toyota can make cars in the u.s. from u.s. components, and do so
profitably, then so can g.m. just like they do in high-cost locations
like europe. end of story.

that they lack the will or political incentive is a matter for our
elected representatives to be made aware of in no uncertain terms.


>
> I'd prefer to buy US made items and do so when possible. Unfortunately
> it is very difficult to do in many cases (clothes, electronics).

then you need to shop around ed. i do.


>
> I still don't see how you can attack GM and then praise Toyota, when
> Toyota is repsonible for moving far more jobs offshore than GM is.

eh? so when toyota set up factories in kentucky [etc], that's moving
american jobs "offshore"??? that's pretzel logic, ed. pretzel logic.


>
>> 3. the u.s. taxpayer is paying for #1& #2.
>
> I am not in favor of this. However, as I keep pointing out Toyota has
> also benefited from US government subsidies.

to the tune of $30+ billion??? and still export their component
sourcing to china? i don't think so ed.


>
>> 4. toyota manufactures in china FOR THE CHINESE MARKET, NOT THE U.S.
>> MARKET.
>
> And you know this how? I see you finally found your caps shift key.
> Printing something in all caps doesn't make it true. But even if true,
> it is a difference without a distinction.

utter bull****. for the n-th time, china won't let you sell in their
market unless you manufacture there. it's so they can steal our designs
and processes. and that doesn't mean you have to manufacture for your
u.s. markets there like g.m. does.

btw, the japanese, partly because of their history with china, and
partly because they seem to be a good deal smarter than the u.s., don't
manufacture anything "competitive" there, only the cheap crap they don't
mind having stolen.


> Both companies are operating
> in China. Both companies are supporting all the horrors you associate
> with China. Whether some of the parts Toyota is making in China are
> shipped to the US or not is irrelevant (but I think it is very
> unlikely that Toyota is not importing parts from China). Toyota's
> operations in China are supporting the same country you trash GM for
> supporting. Your position on this (ie. Toyota's actions compared to
> GM's) is both hypocritical and irrational. .

bull****.

1. see above.

2. toyota is not exporting american jobs to china at american taxpayer
expense. g.m. is.


>
>> 5. toyota has not been sucking at the u.s. taxpayer's teat for the
>> last 20 years.
>
> And GM has? I am pretty sure that for most of the last 20 yers GM has
> paid significant US income taxes.

then you're conveniently ignorant of the facts ed!


> GM dealers have paid more. Income
> and SS Taxes on GM workers have been significant. Sales taxes on GM
> vehciles are significant, etc., etc., etc. I suspect if you add up all
> the government revenue associated with GM produced vehicles it exceeds
> the recent loans to GM. I can't prove it, but I know you cannot prove
> the opposite.

eh? don't you ever read your client's public accounts? g.m. have done
nothing but whine for subsidy, concession and favor for decades. it's
disgusting.


>
> And Toyota has been getting significant tax breaks for at least the
> last 14 years if you include all the incentives from various states to
> Toyota to induce Toyota to locate plants in their jurisdictions.

and g.m. doesn't??? that's bull****.


> The
> recentl hybrid tax credits were essentially a subsidy to Toyota. The
> cash for clunkers program was a nother subsidy that benefited Toyota
> greatly.

cash for clunkers was engineered by your client - g.m. the fact that
g.m. had nothing but crap to sell and flopped miserably is not toyota's
fault.


>
>> now, you go tell your clients and your buddies that work inside the
>> beltway, that the taxpayer is ****ed and is going to pay back for
>> this deceit and robbery. you can't fool all the proles all the time
>> ed. astroturfing shill.
>
> I should know better than to respond to you comments, but I just
> can't stand to sit by and watch you spew your vennon without
> commenting..

astroturfing is "commenting"??? in a strictly first amendment sense of
the word, i suppose it is, but on a moral level, to shill for the
company that is driving the chinese trojan horse deep into the heart of
american society at taxpayer expense is utterly disgusting. you should
be ashamed.


> I know you'll never admit your comments are inspired by
> some sort of insane and itrrational hatered of GM, but at least others
> might understand you are spiteful, irrational (at least with regards
> to GM) and narrow minded.

yeah, i'm "irrational" and narrow minded - i want my tax dollars to work
for americans, not chinese despots that are selling missiles to our
enemies, stealing our jobs, stealing our technology and intellectual
property, hacking our government networks and those of american
businesses like microsoft and google, and are threatening our allies.
i'm old-fashioned like that.


>
> Ed

goddamned shill.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Canuck57 wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 11:02 AM, dr_jeff wrote:
>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be
>>>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is
>>>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of
>>>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere
>>>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They
>>>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new
>>>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good
>>>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars,
>>>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But
>>>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more.
>>>>
>>>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my
>>>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the
>>>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last
>>>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with
>>>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and
>>>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> But Toyota is value added.
>>>
>>> You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC.
>>
>> The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans.
>
> GM would not be having ads if it were not for our taxpayer funded debt.

I disagree. Without the ads, GM would hardly sell any cars.

Jeff

jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> On 04/05/2010 12:38 PM, C. E. White wrote:
>> "jim > wrote in message
>> t...
>>
>>> 1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for
>>> use here in the u.s.
>>
>> I don't have a client, so this statment is ridiculous.
>
> you don't shill for g.m. ed? don't they pay you for all that hard work
> you do in office hours?

You have no idea what my office hour are. And who's dime are you posting
your triades on? You post more often and more regularly than I do. And you
seem to have a no track message anti-GM, protect Toyota agenda. My guess is
that you are some low level grunt stuck in the back room of a failing
company and you are striking out at GM becasue they dumped your company as a
supplier. aybe Toyota is still buying form you for now...but when Toyota
figures out you are dependent on their buisness, look out...

>> How many US companies aren't importing at least some items from China?
>
> how many are doing it at the taxpayer expense ed?

Probably all of them, since the US isn't getting tax revenue from the
producers and workers making the Chinese, Japanese, Phillipine, Thai,
Brazilian, etc. componets.

>
>
>> Do you attack any company doing buisness in China?
>
> actually, i buy american wherever i reasonably can. and i let vendors
> know why.
>
>
>> I'll bet
>> significant portions of the very computer you are using to post to
>> usenet were made in China. Maybe you should stop supporting the
>> Chinese by smashing your computer now...
>
> ed, on this you have a point. but i'll ask you - where is the strategic
> sense in allowing all our "domestic" manufacturers to use cheap exploited
> labor in china? not only does it prop up a despotic regime that threatens
> our allies, it's also not exactly smart to have every p.c. the department
> of trade and defense departments using hardware that comes rootkitted from
> factory. motorola proved that. boeing are doing their best to follow.

Actually I agree with you. Fix it. When it comes to sending jobs to China,
GM doesn't hold a candle to electroincs and computer companies, textile
producers, etc.


>>> 2. that's robbing u.s. suppliers of business, and u.s. taxpayers of
>>> jobs.
>>
>> Robbing is bit strong.
>
> no it's not. if i'm paying someone to take my job away, "rob" is not only
> apt, it's probably somewhat of an understatement.
>
>
>> Are you for or against free trade? Should the
>> US Government erect trade barrier to prevent the importation of
>> foreign auto components?
>
> i'm absolutely against having foreign auto components imported from a
> despotic regime at taxpayer expense and at the cost of american jobs.
> abso-freakin'lutely.

So you are goign to lanch a hate filled attack on Toyota for importing
complete vehicles that include no doemstic content at all? How many American
jobs were lost when my Mother,Sisters,and SO bought Japanese built vehicles
(three RAV4's and 1 Highlander) instead of Escapes and Edeges?

>> On the one hand you attack GM for bad management and taking US
>> Government loans. On the other hand you don't want them to source
>> components form the low cost suppleirs. Do you think GM buys parts in
>> China becasue they like the Chinese?
>
> yes i do.

This is the sort of ridiculous statement that makes you look like an idiot.

> and because they, like you ed, have zero moral integrity. if toyota can
> make cars in the u.s. from u.s. components, and do so profitably, then so
> can g.m. just like they do in high-cost locations like europe. end of
> story.

As I have pointedout numerous times, GM has not made money in Eurpoe since
around 2007. And Toyota only uses some US components. The average Toyota is
only about 70% "domestic" these days (it has actually gone down for the last
couple of years). Many Toyota models have little or no domestic content. The
most "domestic" Toyota is the Sienna, and it is only has about 85% domestic
content.

> that they lack the will or political incentive is a matter for our elected
> representatives to be made aware of in no uncertain terms.

OK, but you need to start with the worst offenders. And GM isn't even close
compared to almost any company in the computer or electroics industry. Heck,
even the building supply companies are worse than GM...I hope you don't have
any of that Chinese made drywall. And when you get the anti-free tradeball
rolling, don't be surprised if Toyota is a target.

>> I'd prefer to buy US made items and do so when possible. Unfortunately
>> it is very difficult to do in many cases (clothes, electronics).
>
> then you need to shop around ed. i do.

And yet you buy Hondas....

I do to, but I am often shocked how hard it is to find non-chinese items. I
needed bearing for my grain drill last year. I had two choices, "chinese"
bearings and supposedly US made bearings. The US made bearings turned out to
be Japanese...go figure. The only disc opener blades available came from
Brazil, and it took be 6 months to get those.

>> I still don't see how you can attack GM and then praise Toyota, when
>> Toyota is repsonible for moving far more jobs offshore than GM is.
>
> eh? so when toyota set up factories in kentucky [etc], that's moving
> american jobs "offshore"??? that's pretzel logic, ed. pretzel logic.

A higher percentage f Toyota componets come from offshore than is the case
for GM. If you care about maintaining US jobs, you should purchase cars with
the highest possible domestic content, which is GM on average.

>>> 3. the u.s. taxpayer is paying for #1& #2.
>>
>> I am not in favor of this. However, as I keep pointing out Toyota has
>> also benefited from US government subsidies.
>
> to the tune of $30+ billion??? and still export their component sourcing
> to china? i don't think so ed.
>
>
>>
>>> 4. toyota manufactures in china FOR THE CHINESE MARKET, NOT THE U.S.
>>> MARKET.
>>
>> And you know this how? I see you finally found your caps shift key.
>> Printing something in all caps doesn't make it true. But even if true,
>> it is a difference without a distinction.
>
> utter bull****. for the n-th time, china won't let you sell in their
> market unless you manufacture there. it's so they can steal our designs
> and processes. and that doesn't mean you have to manufacture for your
> u.s. markets there like g.m. does.

You have no basis for this claim. What is the number one selling brand name
in China...I think it is Buick. GM is doing exactly the same sorts of things
in China as Toyota is.

>
> btw, the japanese, partly because of their history with china, and partly
> because they seem to be a good deal smarter than the u.s., don't
> manufacture anything "competitive" there, only the cheap crap they don't
> mind having stolen.

And exactly what sort of high technology stuff is GM manufacturing in China?

Meanwhile Toyota and its subsiduaries have factories manufacturing, amng
other items:

complete engines
automotive fuel injection componets
automotive processors
diesel injection systems
batteies for hybrid vehicles
complete vehicles
filters

If you want to confrm this visit the Toyota and Denso corporate web sites
and learn the facts.

>> Both companies are operating
>> in China. Both companies are supporting all the horrors you associate
>> with China. Whether some of the parts Toyota is making in China are
>> shipped to the US or not is irrelevant (but I think it is very
>> unlikely that Toyota is not importing parts from China). Toyota's
>> operations in China are supporting the same country you trash GM for
>> supporting. Your position on this (ie. Toyota's actions compared to
>> GM's) is both hypocritical and irrational. .
>
> bull****.

Not bull****. You are irrational and hypocritical.

>
> 1. see above.
>
> 2. toyota is not exporting american jobs to china at american taxpayer
> expense. g.m. is.

You have zero basis for this claim.

>>> 5. toyota has not been sucking at the u.s. taxpayer's teat for the
>>> last 20 years.
>>
>> And GM has? I am pretty sure that for most of the last 20 yers GM has
>> paid significant US income taxes.
>
> then you're conveniently ignorant of the facts ed!

No, I am not. You clearly hope I am, since you depend on the ignorance of
others to spread your hateful message. In 2005 GM paid 215 million in US
(state and federal) income taxes. In 2004 157 million. In 2003 731 million.
In 2002 $644 million. etc, etc., etc. Millions (billions) ore were paid in
property taxes, social security taxes, sales taxes, etc. Millions more were
paid in overseas income taxes each year.

>> GM dealers have paid more. Income
>> and SS Taxes on GM workers have been significant. Sales taxes on GM
>> vehciles are significant, etc., etc., etc. I suspect if you add up all
>> the government revenue associated with GM produced vehicles it exceeds
>> the recent loans to GM. I can't prove it, but I know you cannot prove
>> the opposite.
>
> eh? don't you ever read your client's public accounts? g.m. have done
> nothing but whine for subsidy, concession and favor for decades. it's
> disgusting.

Any references? Has GM asked for anything that other companies haven't "for
decades"?

>> And Toyota has been getting significant tax breaks for at least the
>> last 14 years if you include all the incentives from various states to
>> Toyota to induce Toyota to locate plants in their jurisdictions.
>
> and g.m. doesn't??? that's bull****.

Not to the extent that Toyota has benefited from plant location incentives.
For sure, GM, like most companies, extorts as much money from local
governments as possible. But I was not claiming that GM didn't benefit from
such programs, I was just pointing out that Toyota has also benefited from
Government give away programs.

>> The
>> recentl hybrid tax credits were essentially a subsidy to Toyota. The
>> cash for clunkers program was a nother subsidy that benefited Toyota
>> greatly.
>
> cash for clunkers was engineered by your client - g.m. the fact that g.m.
> had nothing but crap to sell and flopped miserably is not toyota's fault.

Toyota was a supporter of the program as well. In fact I think every car
company and car dealer in America was behind the program. I suppose Obama
was behind similar programs in Europe and Japan as well.

>>> now, you go tell your clients and your buddies that work inside the
>>> beltway, that the taxpayer is ****ed and is going to pay back for
>>> this deceit and robbery. you can't fool all the proles all the time
>>> ed. astroturfing shill.

I'd like to know what sort of warped world you live in. No compnay would
waste a dime on arguing with a putz like you. And I really should stop. If
you were merely an ignorant fool, then maybe I could show you the light, but
you are a spiteful narrow minded ignorant fool with an axe to grind.


>> I should know better than to respond to you comments, but I just
>> can't stand to sit by and watch you spew your vennon without
>> commenting..
>
> astroturfing is "commenting"??? in a strictly first amendment sense of
> the word, i suppose it is, but on a moral level, to shill for the company
> that is driving the chinese trojan horse deep into the heart of american
> society at taxpayer expense is utterly disgusting. you should be ashamed.

I think you should be ashamed because of your ridiculous hypocrisy. You are
perfectly willing to excuse Toyota's invvolvement with the Chinese by making
irrational excuses, while attacking GM for nothing more than buying
components from the lowest cost suppliers.

>> I know you'll never admit your comments are inspired by
>> some sort of insane and itrrational hatered of GM, but at least others
>> might understand you are spiteful, irrational (at least with regards
>> to GM) and narrow minded.
>
> yeah, i'm "irrational" and narrow minded - i want my tax dollars to work
> for americans, not chinese despots that are selling missiles to our
> enemies, stealing our jobs, stealing our technology and intellectual
> property, hacking our government networks and those of american businesses
> like microsoft and google, and are threatening our allies. i'm
> old-fashioned like that.

No you are a hypocritical fool. No matter what you claim, the fact is, GM
cars on average contain a hgher percentage of domestically produced
components than do the average Toyota cars. And while the Japanese may be
our allies today, that wasn't true 75 years ago, and might not be true five
years from now.

Ed

On 04/05/2010 07:00 PM, C. E. White wrote:
> jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>> On 04/05/2010 12:38 PM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>> t...
>>>
>>>> 1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for
>>>> use here in the u.s.
>>>
>>> I don't have a client, so this statment is ridiculous.
>>
>> you don't shill for g.m. ed? don't they pay you for all that hard work
>> you do in office hours?
>
> You have no idea what my office hour are.

i know that you're pretty damned reliable posting here 9-5 m-f.
complete with your diligently interned stats and "research".


> And who's dime are you posting
> your triades on?

my own ed.


> You post more often and more regularly than I do.

not in office hours ed.


> And
> you seem to have a no track message anti-GM, protect Toyota agenda.

weasel words ed - i'm actually not "pro" toyota. but i sure am anti
g.m. exporting american jobs at taxpayer expense.


> My
> guess is that you are some low level grunt stuck in the back room of a
> failing company and you are striking out at GM becasue they dumped your
> company as a supplier. aybe Toyota is still buying form you for
> now...but when Toyota figures out you are dependent on their buisness,
> look out...

no ed, you're the one that needs to look out - you'll get burned alive
in your own trojan horse.


>
>>> How many US companies aren't importing at least some items from China?
>>
>> how many are doing it at the taxpayer expense ed?
>
> Probably all of them, since the US isn't getting tax revenue from the
> producers and workers making the Chinese, Japanese, Phillipine, Thai,
> Brazilian, etc. componets.

ah yes, the list of american companies living on ±$30bn american
taxpayer bailouts and exporting their jobs to japan, the philippines,
thailand and brazil is long and illustrious. oh, wait, it's not. and
none of those countries are despotic regimes that sell missiles to our
enemies or steal our intellectual property. unlike g.m. exporting jobs
to china at taxpayer expense.


>
>>
>>
>>> Do you attack any company doing buisness in China?
>>
>> actually, i buy american wherever i reasonably can. and i let vendors
>> know why.
>>
>>
>>> I'll bet
>>> significant portions of the very computer you are using to post to
>>> usenet were made in China. Maybe you should stop supporting the
>>> Chinese by smashing your computer now...
>>
>> ed, on this you have a point. but i'll ask you - where is the
>> strategic sense in allowing all our "domestic" manufacturers to use
>> cheap exploited labor in china? not only does it prop up a despotic
>> regime that threatens our allies, it's also not exactly smart to have
>> every p.c. the department of trade and defense departments using
>> hardware that comes rootkitted from factory. motorola proved that.
>> boeing are doing their best to follow.
>
> Actually I agree with you. Fix it. When it comes to sending jobs to
> China, GM doesn't hold a candle to electroincs and computer companies,
> textile producers, etc.

if we want to throw money about, we should use it to fund automation
investment, keep all production stateside, and keep all our
technology/industrial muscle at home. if you have a shred of integrity
left, go see your beltway buddies and make it happen ed.

the end.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

In article >, Canuck57 wrote:
>On 05/04/2010 11:40 AM, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less
>>> money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA
>>> auto maker.
>>
>> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally
>> sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't?
>
>Good question. Better management, less union, better design, better
>reputation making for better pricing.

And as mentioned earlier, MUCH lower pension and health care
costs for retired workers.

--
TJH

tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net

On 04/06/2010 07:01 AM, T.J. Higgins wrote:
> In >, Canuck57 wrote:
>> On 05/04/2010 11:40 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>> Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less
>>>> money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA
>>>> auto maker.
>>>
>>> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally
>>> sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't?
>>
>> Good question. Better management, less union, better design, better
>> reputation making for better pricing.
>
> And as mentioned earlier, MUCH lower pension and health care
> costs for retired workers.
>

that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their well
managed and well run european operations, and european pension/health
care costs [along with virtually every other cost too] are /way/ higher
than here.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Apr 5, 8:11*pm, dr_jeff > wrote:

> I disagree. Without the ads, GM would hardly sell any cars.

Consumers go to the Web to get information on cars now, advertisement
costs could be better spent making better vehicles.

--
Ron

Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:11 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
>> I disagree. Without the ads, GM would hardly sell any cars.
>
> Consumers go to the Web to get information on cars now, advertisement
> costs could be better spent making better vehicles.
>
> --
> Ron

Except, without advertising, people won't know about the cars.
Advertising is part of selling the cars. It's a cost of doing business.

Jeff

"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Peterson wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 8:11 pm, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. Without the ads, GM would hardly sell any cars.
>>
>> Consumers go to the Web to get information on cars now, advertisement
>> costs could be better spent making better vehicles.
>>
>> --
>> Ron
>
> Except, without advertising, people won't know about the cars. Advertising
> is part of selling the cars. It's a cost of doing business.
>
> Jeff

At the cost stated, it is about 1/25th of the cost of the average vehicle.
A friend of mine works for a major cosmetics company and he says 40% of
their revenue goes to advertising.

"jim beam" > wrote

>
> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their well
> managed and well run european operations, and european pension/health care
> costs [along with virtually every other cost too] are /way/ higher than
> here.

Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. You have
to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe